Retired USAF pilot Col. Guy S. Razer says 9/11 was 'inside job' perpetrated by US government

reply to post by Alfie1


When it comes to the Government I think it's safe to say that what they tell us and the truth, is often two completly different things..

If they couldn;t find $2.3 trillion I doubt that they would tell us..

reply to post by GoldenFleece


I disagree. Its the same for UFO's,Bigfoot,and the Loch Ness monster. People want proof,not grainy pictures. Im not saying it ISNT a coverup. Oh no,dont get me wrong,I QUESTION the OS also. My problem is you have this guy,highly respected saying he HAS 100% proof,but doesnt give you it. I want to believe,but I cant give into blind faith.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Alfie1

 

When it comes to the Government I think it's safe to say that what they tell us and the truth, is often two completly different things..

If they couldn;t find $2.3 trillion I doubt that they would tell us..

But that is just what SecDef Rumsfeld did but he wasn't saying someone had made off with $2.3 trillion but that, due to the antiquated accounting systems he had inherited, it couldn't properly be reconciled. It was no skin off his nose because the 2.3 trillion figure had been bandied about before he took office.

reply to post by sonnny1

My problem is you have this guy,highly respected saying he HAS 100% proof,but doesnt give you it. I want to believe,but I cant give into blind faith.

He says he's 100% convinced...
Not quite the same as 100% proof...

reply to post by Alfie1


Alfie, we all know Governments are corrupt..
$Billions go missing every year..
9/11 was a great excuse to clear up some loose ends and start afresh..
Tell me, how many investigations or actions do you think were halted with the excuse that the papers etc were destroyed on 9/11??
I've heard of a few..
And even your 2.3 trillion wasn't fully accounted for, not to this day....

reply to post by backinblack


Slip of the tongue..... evidence,proof. Im convinced something is fishy also,but I Personally,would like to see some proof. Something other then the OS.Something fresh. A wiki-leaks doc? A whistle blower? Something along those lines. Same thing for UFO's,and Chemtrails.Hell,I have a list of things I need proof on....

reply to post by backinblack


Maybe alot of people got paid to be quiet...............Thats a lot of hush money.
Really,thats a lot of money that just vanished.............

reply to post by sonnny1


Yeah, would be good..
Hard though when you consider how quickly they sealed off the areas, confiscated evidence and then shipped of the rubble and parts..

reply to post by backinblack


I mean,am I just that anal to want to have the proof? I dont want to hear debunkers say it couldnt happen.I can already prove secret government programs exist,and have existed.Tests on the Public,example,MKULTRA............ So for someone to say its preposterous to think outside the box,is just crazy.

Originally posted by conar


Have you researched the term "corruption"?
Say, some politicians get something from a company.
Then the company get something in return.
You cant dream about how often politicans get gold watches, jewelry etc "for free" without the public know about it.
Maybe the companies dont get anything in return. What do you think, TrickoftheShade?

I think you're probably not that familiar with the real world.

What you seem to be saying is that the insurers and reinsurers of the WTC paid out because Dick Cheney and George Bush had received gold watches and jewelry from them. If you were the CEO of AIG, you'd bribe a politician so that your conpany could pay out billions, make a crashing loss and report a disastrous year to it shareholders, even though you knew exactly the criminal circumstances in which it had happened?

You'll have to explain that one to me.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


You don't agree that the insurance was paid out very fast with little or no questions asked considering the size of the claim.?
Some links would be good..

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by vipertech0596

 

Wow, you're actually correct. I can't believe the instructor who refused to rent Hani Hanjour a Cessna would say something like that. And I certainly understand why you didn't cite any source where it can still be found.

History Commons adds a perspective that makes this a serious contender to become the thread's most cherry-picked quote:

Mid-August 2001: Hijacker Hanjour Still Not Skilled Enough to Fly Solo

In spite of Hanjour’s lack of flying skills, chief instructor Marcel Bernard later claims, “There’s no doubt in my mind that once [Flight 77] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it.” [Capital News, 9/19/2001; Gazette (Greenbelt), 9/21/2001; Newsday, 9/23/2001; Washington Post, 10/15/2001]

However, on 9/11, in piloting Flight 77 into the Pentagon, Hanjour would have needed to do much more than simply point the plane at a target. Because Flight 77 at first seemed to overshoot its target, the Washington Post will note that “the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver. The plane circled 270 degrees to the right to approach the Pentagon from the west, whereupon Flight 77 fell below radar level.… Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm.” [Washington Post, 9/12/2001] One Washington air traffic controller will later comment, “The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane.” [ABC News, 10/24/2001] One law enforcement official who will study Flight 77’s descent after 9/11 will call it the work of “a great talent… virtually a textbook turn and landing.” [Washington Post, 9/10/2002]

Remarkably, the 9/11 Commission will overlook the numerous accounts of Hanjour’s terrible piloting skills (see April 15, 1999 and January-February 2001) and state that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed assigned the Pentagon target specifically to Hanjour because he was “the operation’s most experienced pilot.” [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 530]

www.historycommons.org...

edit on 2/21/2011 by GoldenFleece because: (no reason given)

What you mean, really, is that HC adds another load of cherry picked quotes to discredit what is actually a full and accurate quotation by adding a layer of spin.

You can take pronouncements from witnesses out of context as much as you like, and roll tehm all together to create an impression in the minds of the gullible. Indeed you have to, or the 9/11 conspiracy falls apart. But don't pretend that it's an honest method of research.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

You don't agree that the insurance was paid out very fast with little or no questions asked considering the size of the claim.?
Some links would be good..

I've seeen no evidence to suggest it was paid out particularly fast. It's really up to someone who believes it to be suspicious to provide that information.

But even assuming it was paid unusually quickly, then to me that would actually be compelling evidence of no conspiracy. Because I would assume that the insurers would want to get out of paying any way they could. If they saw merit in theories of an inside job, or of Silverstein being complicit, I'm sure they would immediately air them and try not to pay out.

Truthers are fond of saying that we should "foillow the money", I imagine because it makes them feel like they're in an episode of a cop drama. But when one actually does "follow" the insurance cash, it suggests that the insurers were happy to pay. Which makes no sense at all if they knew it was an inside job.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
What you mean, really, is that HC adds another load of cherry picked quotes to discredit what is actually a full and accurate quotation by adding a layer of spin.

No, that's what you mean and it demonstrates your ignorance of History Commons. You assume that just because I've used it as a source, it's some kind of pro-conspiracy, 9/11 truth site.

To the contrary, it's simply an enormous compilation of facts compiled from a variety of sources, then categorized by topic, subject and date. All the information and quotes are derived from "official" sources like MSM news articles and the 9/11 Commission Report, so if anything, it's biased towards the Official Fairy Tale.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
You can take pronouncements from witnesses out of context as much as you like, and roll tehm all together to create an impression in the minds of the gullible.

Nah, if I really wanted to influence the gullible, I'd join an enormous conspiracy site like ATS, then spend all my time in ONE forum raising phony doubts about 9/11 and posting pro-OS propaganda on every thread.

I might even go on the offensive and accuse others of misrepresenting the facts so they wouldn't catch on to me.

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


Personally, I think that 9/11 consiparcies have been taken too far. Fair enough that people have lost loved family members and friends, but surely mourning over their passing will hurt them emotionally for much longer?

My intention is not to start an argument; I would merely like to know whether anyone else has the same train of thought as me, or whether I am on my own.

reply to post by backinblack


The Rudy Giuliani also had connections to the organized crime, other than just Bernard Kerik. Rudy's father, Harold Giuliani (alias Joseph Starrett), was a convicted hold-up man who served time in Sing Sing prison, and was later employed as an enforcer for a Mafia loan shark operation. Rudy's uncle (his mother's brother), Leo D'Avanzo, ran a loan-sharking and gambling operation with Jimmy Dano, "who was a made man." 79 Additionally, Rudy's cousin Lewis D'Avanzo "was a stone cold gangster who was shot to death in 1977 by FBI agents when he tried to run them down with his car." 80

Of course, the sins of Rudy's father, and his uncle, and his cousin, and his appointed Police Commissioner should not be used to judge Rudy himself. But these facts are worth considering in that Rudy and his staff hired mafia--connected companies to cleanup Ground Zero.

These companies all made a lot of money at the WTC site. Of the $458 million in federal 9/11 aid spent on debris removal, AMEC took $65.8 million, Bovis hauled in $277.2 million, Tully got $76 million and Turner got $39 million. Subcontractors Breeze National, Peter Scalamandre & Sons, Civetta Cousins, Safeway Environmental and Yonkers Contracting made millions of dollars from their work at the site. Subcontractors Mazzocchi Wrecking and Seasons Contracting made tens of millions of dollars.

Another company that was "all over ground zero" was Laquila Construction, run by mob boss Dino Tomassetti. 81 It's not clear if Richard Tomasetti is related to Dino Tomassetti or his family, although the surnames are often interchangeable. The name Tomasetti (or Tomassetti) comes from L'Aquila, Italy, hence the company name.

The govt is very corrupt...

reply to post by RustyShakleford92


"What is the significance of complicating the situation and trying to make the buildings fall"? -Rusty

Did you know that the towers were filled with asbestos?And did you know that they could NOT be legally brought down by demolition because of the asbestos?That means they would have to of been taken apart piece by piece.That also means that there would have been...NO BILLIONS OF DOLLARS FROM INSURANCE!!You forgot about the money.

Did anyone know that Larry has powerful Israelis ties?Just thought I'd throw that in there.

It's a good thing that lucky Larry Silverstien put that insurance policy that strictly covered terrorist attacks..only a few months before 9/11.Normally that would be considered a motive to any normal investigator.

And it's a good thing that Larry and his daughter weren't at work that day.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by sonnny1

 

Yeah, would be good..
Hard though when you consider how quickly they sealed off the areas, confiscated evidence and then shipped of the rubble and parts..

Great point, Backinblack.
This info is from Kevin Ryan...
Other than the supervisory firm LZA/Thornton-Tomasetti, the City also hired five construction companies to handle the majority of the debris removal, and the site was divided up among them. These five companies were AMEC Construction Management, Bovis Lend Lease, Turner Construction, Tully Construction and Tishman Construction. Charlie Vitchers, who worked for Jim Abadie at Bovis, and was a leader at Ground Zero, said the site was then broken up "into basically five segments. Building 7 debris was given to Tishman. The northwest corner of the site was given to AMEC. The northeast section of the site was given to Tully. And the southwest corner of the site and Tower 2 debris removal was given to Bovis." 76 Turner Construction was assigned to a central location between building 5 and building 6.

The five construction companies hired other sub-contractors to complete most of the actual debris removal. Most of the sub-contractors hired were suspected of being associated with organized crime. Some sub-contractors were reportedly linked to the Colombo crime family, including Civetta Cousins, and Yonkers Contracting. Others were associated with the Luchese crime family.

I value all innocent strangers lives the same, whether it be an American baby or the family member of a Taliban.
It is no less tragic if 5,000 people die in a single moment from an act of hatred or if acts of hatred take 5,000 people out in a month.

9/11, whether it was an inside job, outside job, or a little of both....it WAS used to go to war, WAS used to enact legislation that gave more power to those that already have it, and take away some for those who already didn't.

I wonder how much money we have spent on Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001? How many lives? A couple hundred years from now, 9/11 and these wars, will be included in the same chapter of a history book, (or Ipad 2500).
The people who died on 9/11 will be lumped in with the number of people that died during the wars. That is to say the single event of loss of life, is in the grand scheme, is as relevant as the total loss of life for an event...(just like a football game...9/11 was the first quarter score and the wars are the rest of the game)

The tragedy of 9/11 is still ongoing. So people can still do something to try and change to ultimate outcome of this "game". This is where the Truthers and the Debunkers come in. ( I am not including the fringes of these two groups...ie; holographic planes, missiles in NY, Bush planned, The Pentagon plane passengers are all living on the island in "Lost". Also, that the U.S. was clueless, that Osama was the mastermind and worked with a better intelligence apparatus in a cave than anyone has in the U.S. government.

legitimate debunkers should spend their time with the baby and not the bathwater...same with the truthers for that matter.

1) Why is knowing the truth about 9/11 important for us today? a) the game aint over b) so next time people don't allow for a "completely incompetent" investigation...I would argue that the investigation was even criminally incompetent. c) because the answer just might be the straw that breaks the camels back and we show the rest of the world we aren't just a bunch of lazy peasants enslaved by our own apathy. We are a willing frog sitting in a pot of water and as each liberty is taken away or limited, the water gets hotter.

Now for my opinion on what questions are important and why:

1) I don't think it is important whether or not the towers were wired to be brought down. It is important "when they were wired" however.
If they were wired for the purpose of being able to bring the towers down in case of some catastrophic situation that would risk the buildings falling any direction but straight down, and it was done years prior to 9/11 then that is one of those situations where you aren't going to tell the public either before or after, people wouldn't understand and of course they would be wondering if all the tall buildings in America are wired like that, it would screw with peoples minds, business, and money...So, it would be secret always.
I know that the debunkers don't believe these buildings were brought down....even building 7. If they can't believe their own eyes, or believe what Silverman meant when he said.."pull em", then don't waste your time arguing with them....just like don't waste your time arguing with the holographic plane people.

2) Was Cheney in control of the Norad exercises or had anything to do with the exercises that day? Is that common or have any precedence?

3) How common, meaning has there ever been, exercises done like they were on 9/11, who usually ran them, and how inclusive were they in the past? (suggestion to Military, don't do it again like that if it is going to confuse you so bad that we are so vulnerable. Anyone get fired for that poor judgment?)

4) Are there Pentagon videos that haven't been shown to the public from 9/11? If not, why not?

5) Why the delay, lack of funding, lack of independent investigation, and attempt to appoint Kissenger
to the investigation? This question frustrates me the most! There are only 2 answers, both suck.
a) our government is so grossly incompetent that I can't imagine how they are protecting us from anything at all. Don't we fire people in the private sector if they are so bad at their job that it endangers others? You wouldn't want me plotting out the space shuttles course for example. Why do these people get a pass? Not just elected officials but career bureaucratics. Would you people stop voting for these tards just because they have a "R" or a "D" behind their names! If you support Palin, I'm talking to you! ( if you want a good conservative support Ron Paul)........anyway........we can do something about the elected officials easily enough, the career guys have to be brought down by putting pressure on, shine the light, demand accountability.
and finally....
b) they have something to hide.....that isn't a good answer to say the least.


Those, I feel, are 5 important questions.....there are others but they are more of an evidence trail and in depth stuff, not broad like these 5.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

You don't agree that the insurance was paid out very fast with little or no questions asked considering the size of the claim.?
Some links would be good..

I've seeen no evidence to suggest it was paid out particularly fast. It's really up to someone who believes it to be suspicious to provide that information.

But even assuming it was paid unusually quickly, then to me that would actually be compelling evidence of no conspiracy. Because I would assume that the insurers would want to get out of paying any way they could. If they saw merit in theories of an inside job, or of Silverstein being complicit, I'm sure they would immediately air them and try not to pay out.

Truthers are fond of saying that we should "foillow the money", I imagine because it makes them feel like they're in an episode of a cop drama. But when one actually does "follow" the insurance cash, it suggests that the insurers were happy to pay. Which makes no sense at all if they knew it was an inside job.

Larry Silverstein owned WTC building 7, and in May 2001, he also finalized a 99-year lease of the WTC complex and took over operation of WTC buildings 1, 2, 4 and 5 from the PANYNJ. His partners in the deal were retail operator Westfield America and real estate investor Lloyd Goldman. To finance his deal for the WTC, "Silverstein borrowed $726 million from GMAC Commercial Mortgage, a unit of General Motors. GMAC in turn converted the loan into securities, which it sold to investors like pension funds." [123]

Shortly thereafter, it was Jeff Wharton that first told Larry Silverstein about the attacks. But Silverstein watched it all play out on television. Although Silverstein was said to be distressed by the loss of four of his employees, at the same time, "in a display of shrewdness, Silverstein was already delving into complex legal strategies by the next morning." [127]
I
n 2007, Larry Silverstein was awarded a $4.55 billion settlement in insurance payouts for the destruction of the WTC, as a result of the largest insurance claim ever made. [130]